hat I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?
Presumably because you don't like the negative effects of living in a place with polluted air and water. Have you ever been in a city with serious smog problems? I have. It's not pleasant. I won't speak for you but personally I prefer to breathe clean air. Furthermore by sourcing their energy smartly they can actually save money thus making their service more efficient and affordable.
Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce
That hasn't been true for several years now. By 2020 it's estimated that solar panels will pay back all the energy they've ever taken to manufacture all of them.
the same with wind power.
Wrong again. Did you actually bother to research any of this? 20 Seconds on Google would have corrected your false assertions.
A coal plant returns the power it took to build with all parts in less than a month.
At the cost of dumping massive amounts of pollutants (including CO2) into the atmosphere for decades. When coal actually has to pay for the full energy (and financial) cost of mitigating the pollution it costs then you might have a fair comparison.
Companies care about making money, and they only care about being green if the PR and money saved on penalties outweighs the money lost being green.
You are presuming that being green and saving money are mutually exclusive. This is untrue as a general proposition. In actual fact using renewable energy sources and eliminating waste streams actually can save considerable sums of money. Companies locate data centers in places where hydro power is cheap and plentiful. Putting solar panels on the roof can save substantial sums by leveling energy costs for cooling a data center. Using green sources of energy can save money on pollution mitigation. And yes there is a PR value to it as well. Green does not inherently equal expensive and in actual fact it can be more cost effective. It's the companies that don't grasp this fact that are actually often wasting money.
Sigh... Please stop. Yes a space elevator is a cool idea. It will not happen in your lifetime if indeed it ever does. Probably not in the lifetime of your great, great grandchildren either. If we ever do get some material than makes building one actually feasible I assure you that it will make the news because that would be a genuinely big deal. No need to keep asking every time someone comes out with a modestly stronger new material.
If we do someday build one, Earth is probably not the first place we would do it. Honestly we're more likely to build one on Mars or the Moon first because we don't need materials anywhere near as strong. Plus when the first one fails, having it fail in a place like Mars where it wouldn't immediately become a WMD would be a good idea. You don't test bed that sort of stuff over major population centers.
This is pure carbon which is really NOT something you want to build any kind of structure out of if its likely ever to come near a naked flame or source of heat
When was the last time you lit a diamond on fire? Pure carbon burns at 4890F. For comparison steel melts at around 2750F.
Don't confuse carbon with carbon based products like coal. Coal is a composite material that has oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and nitrogen. It's no where close to being pure carbon.
There are very few application where carbon fiber is better than steel, because it lacks most of the properties of steel.
There are lots of applications where carbon fiber is a superior material to steel. The reverse is also true. Your statement is a tautology. You're saying steel is better because it has the properties of steel. Each material has advantages and drawbacks, both physical and economic.
It's not elastic, it's not machinable, it's brittle, it doesn't wear well.
You use carbon fiber in applications where high rigidity and strength to weight is needed. For these applications it is often vastly superior to steel. Saying it isn't machinable is kind of misleading because it presumes that machinability is an inherent advantage when in fact it actually can be wasteful or unnecessary in many circumstances. Carbon fiber reinforced polymers are created using completely different processes more akin to molding or laminating than machining. You're comparing apples to oranges.
There seems to be no replacement for steel used structurally (including this stuff), for tool steel, for anything that needs to flex a bit in normal use, etc.
There are plenty of replacement manterials for most of those applications. The reason they typically aren't used is economics. Aluminum for example can be used for many of the same applications as steel but most of the time it is slightly more expensive. Tungsten carbide can make a better cutting tool than steel in many cases but again, cost comes into play. Steel's advantage is more in its economy than in its specific properties for many applications. We don't use steel in car bodies because it's the best material available but because it is a good material that is comparatively inexpensive. We don't use steel for machine tools because it is the best material for those but because it is a good material and is comparatively inexpensive to the alternatives.
Why are all actors "public figures who have chosen a public life"?
Because for whatever reason well known actors are considered celebrities in our culture worthy of adoration and fame. I don't pretend to understand why this should be the case but it is. It also is why they can in many cases get paid ludicrous sums of money - people are clearly willing to pay to see famous people do things. Well known actors get paid well because of their fame. Nobody cared about Tom Hanks before he became famous. Almost every actor is trying their hardest to gain notoriety and yet we're supposed to pretend that they aren't public figures? Spare me.
Are all civil servants "public figures"?
To a degree yes. If you want to work in the public space then we need to know who you are and a bit about your background. For transparency reasons if nothing else.
Certainly in Europe, everyone has a right to a private life.
No they don't. There are certain jobs that are inherently public in nature. Acting, politics, professional sports, and some others. The reason they get paid a lot of money is precisely because of their celebrity. You don't get elected if nobody knows who you are. You don't get big movie roles in most cases if you are a nobody. (and those that do don't remain nobodies) It's no different than anywhere else. Being a public figure is almost always a choice. They can chose a private life but that's probably not compatible with success in their chosen profession.
On a slightly related note: I am always surprised (ok, maybe not surprised but annoyed) at how many members of this (ostensibly) "science and tech" news aggregate always seem to be so vehemently against the proliferation of technology into our daily lives.
It's not a problem of technology per-se but proliferation of technology in inappropriate and dangerous places. There isn't a single value added feature for wifi in a refrigerator. Not one. Putting wifi into it just adds cost and complexity and security problems with no offsetting benefit. Worse, appliance makers have a long and glorious history of building their products as cheaply as possible and not caring about them at all beyond any warranty obligations. Do you seriously think these things will get regular and timely high quality security updates in perpetuity? Not a chance. These things will get hacked about 5 minutes after installation and the owners will be left out to dry by the maker of the device.
In the immortal words of Jeff Goldblum, "you were so busy thinking about whether you could do something that you didn't bother to consider whether you should".
IMDb believes that the law is a violation of the First Amendment and it says the state has "chosen instead to chill free speech and to undermine access to factual information of public interest" rather than trying to tackle age-discrimination in a more meaningful way.
While I don't actually care about the information in question, there is nothing private or sensitive about the age of actors or other public figures. They are public figures who have chosen a public life. If they don't like the consequences of that then they should chose another profession. There certainly is no compelling state interest worthy of such a law nor special group in need of protection. It's not as if their ages are some big secret to anyone who cares to find out. IMBd is probably right and there probably would win any first amendment related lawsuit should they chose to fight one.
A patent troll however is a totally sane and calculating individual according to any textbook. However he does his actions anyways. That is pure evil.
You seriously think patent trolls are as bad as genocide? Slavery? Premeditated murder? You need to sort out your priorities mate because if you really believe patent trolls are the worst of all evils then you have some seriously messed up notions about the world and ethics.
according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."
Really? That's a little hyperbolic don't you think? Yes patent trolls are a very bad thing but let's not exaggerate their impact or how much they matter. They certainly are not evil on the scale of slavery or war or genocide or any number of other horrific crimes. I'm tempted to make some snarky Trump joke since he is (not kidding) better evidence for pure evil than patent trolls but even that would be an unfair comparison given some of the real evils of the world.
Patent trolls are extortionists and leeches on society and terrible human beings but the "best evidence that pure evil exists"? No. No they are not.
Sure, the iPhone 7 _case_ is barely different from the iPhone 6. And yes, there is no reason to upgrade... unless you want a much better camera, faster CPU, faster Touch ID, force touch, water resistance...
I've owned both the 6 and the 7. The camera in the 7 is a modest improvement - certainly nothing world changing. The phone isn't notably faster nor is the touch ID. The force touch is one of those "features" that seems nifty but rarely gets used in practice. The water resistance is nice but it wasn't like I made a habit of dunking my 6. Sorry my friend but all the improvements in the 7 are modest and incremental. If you have a 6 already I cannot in good faith recommend upgrading for any practical reason. The 7 is nice but not really good enough to justify a multi-hundred dollar upgrade from the 6 unless you are an Apple fanboi who cannot bear to be without the latest and greatest.
I like Apple Pay a lot but it hasn't exactly taken the world by storm and Apple doesn't seem to be working too hard to promote it. Standard procedure for them since Jobs died. Introduce something kind of neat and then mostly ignore it for several years. Hell the apps written by Apple on my iPhone are barely improved from the first version I bought. They keep making changes to the interface, usually resulting in it being more annoying to use than before but with little to no extra functionality.
They mostly ignored the _desktop_ Mac line for several years now, but the MacBook (introduced last year) was a very significant change as was the MacBook Pro introduced this year.
There hasn't been a substantial *improvement* in the MacBook for several years. The few upgrades have been barely noteworthy and the latest MacBook Pro has some very questionable design decisions. Wow, USB-C and a touchbar nobody asked for or cares about. Apple only gets about 15% of their revenue from PCs these days so they clearly have their management attention elsewhere. Their laptops are nice but you get the feeling they could be a lot better. I haven't seen an update to OS X that really made me notice it in years. Differences between Sierra and El Capitan? Couldn't tell you and I use a Mac almost daily at home. None of the "improvements" really affect my daily use one bit.
They haven't done anything particular novel or interesting in the iPad line... except for the iPad Pro.
[sarcasm]Ooh, a bigger screen, a shitty keyboard and a stylus that is nearly useless. What groundbreaking technology... [/sarcasm]
They haven't done anything interesting with AppleTV... except release a brand new Apple TV with an app store just over a year ago.
Which is more or less a non-upgrade. I own the previous AppleTV and my in-laws own the current one. There is nothing the current one does that makes me want to upgrade. Apps? What app do I need on AppleTV that would make me want to buy it? I sure haven't seen one. The new remote is annoying to use and it doesn't give me any special capabilities I can't live without. AppleTV is a toy - nothing more.
I took a look at their web site, and man, does it feel like vapor-ware.
Yeah I've gotten the same vibe from the company from day one. It doesn't really strike me as a serious company. Seems more like an effort to get some money from investors on a product that will probably never come to market. Maybe I'm wrong but there is just something about the whole deal that seems a bit off from what I'd expect out of a serious company.
Have you forgotten the courageous removal of the mini-headphone jack?
No but I think that is more sound and fury than an actual problem for most people. Some people care about it a lot. Most don't really give a shit. Apple is selling tons of iPhone 7 units so the evidence is clear that it isn't a deal breaker for plenty of folks. No, the main reason people haven't upgrades is because the iPhone 7 is barely different from the 6. I've owned and used both so I know first hand. The headphone jack thing just isn't that big of a real world issue.
Gone are the days when the left and right speaker are in perfect sync. Gone are the days when your audio and video were in sync.
I happen to own an iPhone 7 and I've experienced none of what you describe. My earphones work just as well as they ever did even on the rare occasion when I have to use a dongle to attach them. Most of the time I use bluetooth and it works just fine. Nothing amazing but fine. If the headphone jack is super important to you there are plenty of other very good options out there.
Pricy, laggy, hit or miss pressure sensitivity, noticeable parallax, slippery to hold and doesn't even have an eraser.
Haven't used the Apple Pencil enough to know much about its hardware performance but I do know that the big problem with it is that rather little software supports it in any useful way except for a few bits of mostly primitive drawing software. I haven't seen any decent note taking software for the iPad yet and believe me I've looked. And the fact that the iPad doesn't have a storage slot for it is to my mind unforgivable. To have a stylus you really have to get software to utilize it as something more than a fine tipped finger and Apple hasn't bothered with that yet.
I own a house, and I can't. I'd have to run an electric cable across a public throughway.
Oh well then you can generalize your situation to apply to everybody in the world then... Sorry my friend but your situation does not describe everyone else.
Only 66% of homes in the UK have off-street parking, including those with a garage
That's still a HUGE number of homes. You are making the mistake of thinking that somehow the options are either gasoline or electric with no other options. Gasoline and diesel powered cars aren't going away any time soon. But electric WILL become a serious player in the near future I think. It has too many advantages both economic and performance to be discounted.
Mine is one of them; the garage is 80 yards from the house, has no power and is too small to fit a car into.
If you can't fit a car in it then it isn't a garage, it's a shed. The fact that it currently has no power is a choice you can remedy if you want to. I don't have a car charger in my garage (which does fit 3 cars) right now but I could change that easily enough.
Hybrid cars are an option but you can eyeroll all you fucking want, electric cars are not fucking viable in this country.
They are perfectly viable. They don't have to completely displace petrol vehicles to be viable. Yes there will be some infrastructure changes required. Those changes will take a long time to happen. The transition to electric cars isn't going to happen for at least another 15+ years in any sort of substantial way. Once it does though the power lines will be laid and the infrastructure will be built. We didn't used to have petrol stations on every street corner either not so many years ago.
Electric vehicles just aren't viable though. Half the population have nowhere to charge one at home, let alone when anywhere else.
Eyeroll. Electric cars can be charged anywhere there is an electric outlet which is pretty much everywhere. And even if we ignore that piece of reality it still is the case that well over half the population DOES have a place to charge them at their house. Furthermore we can build the infrastructure if we want to and there are hybrid cars as a bridge option until we get there. Frankly electric and hybrid cars appear to be the future whether you care to admit it or not. Won't happen overnight but it is likely to happen because it makes economic sense in the long run. They are more fuel efficient, can be better performing, and are already approaching price parity in many cases.
That's a whole lot of words to say a thing that was already said. Humans don't just create carbon. It already existed.
The only thing that creates carbon is stars when they go boom. Neither humans nor plants nor any other form of life creates carbon. The carbon that is on earth has been here for billions of years. The only question is how much of it is in the ground versus the atmosphere and humans absolutely can affect that balance.
(for you pedantic souls out there, yes I'm aware humans can technically create carbon from other atoms but doing so takes huge amounts of energy and isn't done on any meaningful scale)
Apple last year faced declining revenue as it grappled with the first prolonged slump in iPhone sales.
Not really shocking. The iPhone 7 is barely different from the iPhone 6. They gave users no reason to upgrade. They've basically ignored the Macintosh line for several years now. They haven't done anything particularly novel or interesting in their iPad line in quite a while. They introduced the Apple Pencil but didn't really commit to building the software to make it useful or give users a way to store it in/with the device between uses. I hate to say it but the Microsoft Surface line has been a lot more innovative recently. The Apple Watch was always going to be a niche product at best and they haven't done anything interesting with Apple TV.
Apple hasn't released anything new or noteworthy so why should their revenue be expected to go up. Their products are still good but they really need to push the envelope a bit more if they want to maintain their current gaudy profit margins.
A few places in the UK have already started having tolls for vehicles that emit pollution at the point of use.
Which is fine but let's not pretend they are enough to force a mass transition to electric cars. The fees would have to be absurdly high to really force people to accelerate the switch to electric cars and unfortunately the options in EVs and hybrids are still rather lacking unless you want a really crappy eco-cred vehicle like a Prius or an impractical city car like a Leaf. Some like the Chevy Volt aren't bad but the options are rather thin if you don't want a sedan or hatchback.
It's not much of a stretch to imagine congestion fees for non-electric motor vehicles in urban areas.
Maybe in the UK it's not a stretch. Tolls like that will likely never happen in the US during my lifetime as long as the republican party maintains its hard on against anything that smells like a tax. Maybe some of the states in the US (California?) could manage such a system but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
Humans don't just magically create carbon. They are carbon neutral.
Humans by ourselves are not carbon neutral even if you ignore our activities. However humans as a component of an ecosystem can be carbon neutral. In simple terms we breathe in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide. Plants do the reverse. Together the system is carbon neutral even though parts of it are not. Problem is that humans also do activities that are decidedly not carbon neutral and we do them to a degree the earth's ecosystem cannot easily absorb.
The problem arises when you take carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere.
Correct. Which is something we do with almost every modern day activity it seems. What mystifies me is how people actually can believe that digging up fossilized carbon reserves (essentially sequestered carbon) and releasing it into the air and water somehow we can magically be done on a vast scale with no adverse effects.
just my own very sensitive nose can barely tell a diesel car in front vs trucks/buses I must pass(or stop) or have breathing trouble... Didn't read the referenced post but if it's true at all it must be pound for pound? Cause diesel cars dont' even come close to being as offensive.
Nitric Oxide (NO) is colorless and odorless. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) has a reddish brown color and a pungent smell. So if the majority of the NOx emmissions are Nitric Oxide you couldn't smell it even if you wanted to.
European countries should just do themselves a favor and begin killing off excess humans.
They tried that in the 1910s and again in the 1940s. Didn't work either time. Just depressed the population growth for a while and generated a lot of rubble in the process.
All of this drawn-out study and deliberation and the protracted uncertainty and wasted manufacturing and expense for users makes very little sense, when it's abundantly clear that all road transport is set to become electric in a very short space of time.
I'm as big a fan of electric cars as anyone here but even I'm not naive enough to believe that gasoline/diesel powered vehicles are going to go away any time soon. Even if electric cars eventually do take over the market it's going to take decades to happen. The average age of a car on the road today is 11.5 years. That number isn't going to drop dramatically any time soon. And right now EVs are more expensive than their equivalent gas/diesel powered cars in most cases. That's going to keep the dino-juice powered cars on the road for quite some time to come.
Slashdot Mirror
hat I care about is whether their service is efficient and affordable. Why again do I care about where they get their energy from?
Presumably because you don't like the negative effects of living in a place with polluted air and water. Have you ever been in a city with serious smog problems? I have. It's not pleasant. I won't speak for you but personally I prefer to breathe clean air. Furthermore by sourcing their energy smartly they can actually save money thus making their service more efficient and affordable.
Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce
That hasn't been true for several years now. By 2020 it's estimated that solar panels will pay back all the energy they've ever taken to manufacture all of them.
the same with wind power.
Wrong again. Did you actually bother to research any of this? 20 Seconds on Google would have corrected your false assertions.
A coal plant returns the power it took to build with all parts in less than a month.
At the cost of dumping massive amounts of pollutants (including CO2) into the atmosphere for decades. When coal actually has to pay for the full energy (and financial) cost of mitigating the pollution it costs then you might have a fair comparison.
Companies care about making money, and they only care about being green if the PR and money saved on penalties outweighs the money lost being green.
You are presuming that being green and saving money are mutually exclusive. This is untrue as a general proposition. In actual fact using renewable energy sources and eliminating waste streams actually can save considerable sums of money. Companies locate data centers in places where hydro power is cheap and plentiful. Putting solar panels on the roof can save substantial sums by leveling energy costs for cooling a data center. Using green sources of energy can save money on pollution mitigation. And yes there is a PR value to it as well. Green does not inherently equal expensive and in actual fact it can be more cost effective. It's the companies that don't grasp this fact that are actually often wasting money.
Could we make one out of this material?
Sigh... Please stop. Yes a space elevator is a cool idea. It will not happen in your lifetime if indeed it ever does. Probably not in the lifetime of your great, great grandchildren either. If we ever do get some material than makes building one actually feasible I assure you that it will make the news because that would be a genuinely big deal. No need to keep asking every time someone comes out with a modestly stronger new material.
If we do someday build one, Earth is probably not the first place we would do it. Honestly we're more likely to build one on Mars or the Moon first because we don't need materials anywhere near as strong. Plus when the first one fails, having it fail in a place like Mars where it wouldn't immediately become a WMD would be a good idea. You don't test bed that sort of stuff over major population centers.
Have you ever gotten a Torch and Oxygen anywhere near a Carbon Block?
You get exciting results with putting a torch and oxygen anywhere near most materials. Not really sure what you are proving here.
This is pure carbon which is really NOT something you want to build any kind of structure out of if its likely ever to come near a naked flame or source of heat
When was the last time you lit a diamond on fire? Pure carbon burns at 4890F. For comparison steel melts at around 2750F.
Don't confuse carbon with carbon based products like coal. Coal is a composite material that has oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and nitrogen. It's no where close to being pure carbon.
There are very few application where carbon fiber is better than steel, because it lacks most of the properties of steel.
There are lots of applications where carbon fiber is a superior material to steel. The reverse is also true. Your statement is a tautology. You're saying steel is better because it has the properties of steel. Each material has advantages and drawbacks, both physical and economic.
It's not elastic, it's not machinable, it's brittle, it doesn't wear well.
You use carbon fiber in applications where high rigidity and strength to weight is needed. For these applications it is often vastly superior to steel. Saying it isn't machinable is kind of misleading because it presumes that machinability is an inherent advantage when in fact it actually can be wasteful or unnecessary in many circumstances. Carbon fiber reinforced polymers are created using completely different processes more akin to molding or laminating than machining. You're comparing apples to oranges.
There seems to be no replacement for steel used structurally (including this stuff), for tool steel, for anything that needs to flex a bit in normal use, etc.
There are plenty of replacement manterials for most of those applications. The reason they typically aren't used is economics. Aluminum for example can be used for many of the same applications as steel but most of the time it is slightly more expensive. Tungsten carbide can make a better cutting tool than steel in many cases but again, cost comes into play. Steel's advantage is more in its economy than in its specific properties for many applications. We don't use steel in car bodies because it's the best material available but because it is a good material that is comparatively inexpensive. We don't use steel for machine tools because it is the best material for those but because it is a good material and is comparatively inexpensive to the alternatives.
Why are all actors "public figures who have chosen a public life"?
Because for whatever reason well known actors are considered celebrities in our culture worthy of adoration and fame. I don't pretend to understand why this should be the case but it is. It also is why they can in many cases get paid ludicrous sums of money - people are clearly willing to pay to see famous people do things. Well known actors get paid well because of their fame. Nobody cared about Tom Hanks before he became famous. Almost every actor is trying their hardest to gain notoriety and yet we're supposed to pretend that they aren't public figures? Spare me.
Are all civil servants "public figures"?
To a degree yes. If you want to work in the public space then we need to know who you are and a bit about your background. For transparency reasons if nothing else.
Certainly in Europe, everyone has a right to a private life.
No they don't. There are certain jobs that are inherently public in nature. Acting, politics, professional sports, and some others. The reason they get paid a lot of money is precisely because of their celebrity. You don't get elected if nobody knows who you are. You don't get big movie roles in most cases if you are a nobody. (and those that do don't remain nobodies) It's no different than anywhere else. Being a public figure is almost always a choice. They can chose a private life but that's probably not compatible with success in their chosen profession.
I get your cost argument, but I fail to understand the security risk if you don't permit it to connect to your network.
Because some people will connect it without understanding the risk they are taking. "Ooh, shiny!" is a shockingly compelling argument to many.
On a slightly related note: I am always surprised (ok, maybe not surprised but annoyed) at how many members of this (ostensibly) "science and tech" news aggregate always seem to be so vehemently against the proliferation of technology into our daily lives.
It's not a problem of technology per-se but proliferation of technology in inappropriate and dangerous places. There isn't a single value added feature for wifi in a refrigerator. Not one. Putting wifi into it just adds cost and complexity and security problems with no offsetting benefit. Worse, appliance makers have a long and glorious history of building their products as cheaply as possible and not caring about them at all beyond any warranty obligations. Do you seriously think these things will get regular and timely high quality security updates in perpetuity? Not a chance. These things will get hacked about 5 minutes after installation and the owners will be left out to dry by the maker of the device.
In the immortal words of Jeff Goldblum, "you were so busy thinking about whether you could do something that you didn't bother to consider whether you should".
IMDb believes that the law is a violation of the First Amendment and it says the state has "chosen instead to chill free speech and to undermine access to factual information of public interest" rather than trying to tackle age-discrimination in a more meaningful way.
While I don't actually care about the information in question, there is nothing private or sensitive about the age of actors or other public figures. They are public figures who have chosen a public life. If they don't like the consequences of that then they should chose another profession. There certainly is no compelling state interest worthy of such a law nor special group in need of protection. It's not as if their ages are some big secret to anyone who cares to find out. IMBd is probably right and there probably would win any first amendment related lawsuit should they chose to fight one.
A patent troll however is a totally sane and calculating individual according to any textbook. However he does his actions anyways. That is pure evil.
You seriously think patent trolls are as bad as genocide? Slavery? Premeditated murder? You need to sort out your priorities mate because if you really believe patent trolls are the worst of all evils then you have some seriously messed up notions about the world and ethics.
according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."
Really? That's a little hyperbolic don't you think? Yes patent trolls are a very bad thing but let's not exaggerate their impact or how much they matter. They certainly are not evil on the scale of slavery or war or genocide or any number of other horrific crimes. I'm tempted to make some snarky Trump joke since he is (not kidding) better evidence for pure evil than patent trolls but even that would be an unfair comparison given some of the real evils of the world.
Patent trolls are extortionists and leeches on society and terrible human beings but the "best evidence that pure evil exists"? No. No they are not.
Sure, the iPhone 7 _case_ is barely different from the iPhone 6. And yes, there is no reason to upgrade... unless you want a much better camera, faster CPU, faster Touch ID, force touch, water resistance...
I've owned both the 6 and the 7. The camera in the 7 is a modest improvement - certainly nothing world changing. The phone isn't notably faster nor is the touch ID. The force touch is one of those "features" that seems nifty but rarely gets used in practice. The water resistance is nice but it wasn't like I made a habit of dunking my 6. Sorry my friend but all the improvements in the 7 are modest and incremental. If you have a 6 already I cannot in good faith recommend upgrading for any practical reason. The 7 is nice but not really good enough to justify a multi-hundred dollar upgrade from the 6 unless you are an Apple fanboi who cannot bear to be without the latest and greatest.
I like Apple Pay a lot but it hasn't exactly taken the world by storm and Apple doesn't seem to be working too hard to promote it. Standard procedure for them since Jobs died. Introduce something kind of neat and then mostly ignore it for several years. Hell the apps written by Apple on my iPhone are barely improved from the first version I bought. They keep making changes to the interface, usually resulting in it being more annoying to use than before but with little to no extra functionality.
They mostly ignored the _desktop_ Mac line for several years now, but the MacBook (introduced last year) was a very significant change as was the MacBook Pro introduced this year.
There hasn't been a substantial *improvement* in the MacBook for several years. The few upgrades have been barely noteworthy and the latest MacBook Pro has some very questionable design decisions. Wow, USB-C and a touchbar nobody asked for or cares about. Apple only gets about 15% of their revenue from PCs these days so they clearly have their management attention elsewhere. Their laptops are nice but you get the feeling they could be a lot better. I haven't seen an update to OS X that really made me notice it in years. Differences between Sierra and El Capitan? Couldn't tell you and I use a Mac almost daily at home. None of the "improvements" really affect my daily use one bit.
They haven't done anything particular novel or interesting in the iPad line... except for the iPad Pro.
[sarcasm]Ooh, a bigger screen, a shitty keyboard and a stylus that is nearly useless. What groundbreaking technology... [/sarcasm]
They haven't done anything interesting with AppleTV... except release a brand new Apple TV with an app store just over a year ago.
Which is more or less a non-upgrade. I own the previous AppleTV and my in-laws own the current one. There is nothing the current one does that makes me want to upgrade. Apps? What app do I need on AppleTV that would make me want to buy it? I sure haven't seen one. The new remote is annoying to use and it doesn't give me any special capabilities I can't live without. AppleTV is a toy - nothing more.
I took a look at their web site, and man, does it feel like vapor-ware.
Yeah I've gotten the same vibe from the company from day one. It doesn't really strike me as a serious company. Seems more like an effort to get some money from investors on a product that will probably never come to market. Maybe I'm wrong but there is just something about the whole deal that seems a bit off from what I'd expect out of a serious company.
Have you forgotten the courageous removal of the mini-headphone jack?
No but I think that is more sound and fury than an actual problem for most people. Some people care about it a lot. Most don't really give a shit. Apple is selling tons of iPhone 7 units so the evidence is clear that it isn't a deal breaker for plenty of folks. No, the main reason people haven't upgrades is because the iPhone 7 is barely different from the 6. I've owned and used both so I know first hand. The headphone jack thing just isn't that big of a real world issue.
Gone are the days when the left and right speaker are in perfect sync. Gone are the days when your audio and video were in sync.
I happen to own an iPhone 7 and I've experienced none of what you describe. My earphones work just as well as they ever did even on the rare occasion when I have to use a dongle to attach them. Most of the time I use bluetooth and it works just fine. Nothing amazing but fine. If the headphone jack is super important to you there are plenty of other very good options out there.
Pricy, laggy, hit or miss pressure sensitivity, noticeable parallax, slippery to hold and doesn't even have an eraser.
Haven't used the Apple Pencil enough to know much about its hardware performance but I do know that the big problem with it is that rather little software supports it in any useful way except for a few bits of mostly primitive drawing software. I haven't seen any decent note taking software for the iPad yet and believe me I've looked. And the fact that the iPad doesn't have a storage slot for it is to my mind unforgivable. To have a stylus you really have to get software to utilize it as something more than a fine tipped finger and Apple hasn't bothered with that yet.
I own a house, and I can't. I'd have to run an electric cable across a public throughway.
Oh well then you can generalize your situation to apply to everybody in the world then... Sorry my friend but your situation does not describe everyone else.
Only 66% of homes in the UK have off-street parking, including those with a garage
That's still a HUGE number of homes. You are making the mistake of thinking that somehow the options are either gasoline or electric with no other options. Gasoline and diesel powered cars aren't going away any time soon. But electric WILL become a serious player in the near future I think. It has too many advantages both economic and performance to be discounted.
Mine is one of them; the garage is 80 yards from the house, has no power and is too small to fit a car into.
If you can't fit a car in it then it isn't a garage, it's a shed. The fact that it currently has no power is a choice you can remedy if you want to. I don't have a car charger in my garage (which does fit 3 cars) right now but I could change that easily enough.
Hybrid cars are an option but you can eyeroll all you fucking want, electric cars are not fucking viable in this country.
They are perfectly viable. They don't have to completely displace petrol vehicles to be viable. Yes there will be some infrastructure changes required. Those changes will take a long time to happen. The transition to electric cars isn't going to happen for at least another 15+ years in any sort of substantial way. Once it does though the power lines will be laid and the infrastructure will be built. We didn't used to have petrol stations on every street corner either not so many years ago.
Electric vehicles just aren't viable though. Half the population have nowhere to charge one at home, let alone when anywhere else.
Eyeroll. Electric cars can be charged anywhere there is an electric outlet which is pretty much everywhere. And even if we ignore that piece of reality it still is the case that well over half the population DOES have a place to charge them at their house. Furthermore we can build the infrastructure if we want to and there are hybrid cars as a bridge option until we get there. Frankly electric and hybrid cars appear to be the future whether you care to admit it or not. Won't happen overnight but it is likely to happen because it makes economic sense in the long run. They are more fuel efficient, can be better performing, and are already approaching price parity in many cases.
That's a whole lot of words to say a thing that was already said. Humans don't just create carbon. It already existed.
The only thing that creates carbon is stars when they go boom. Neither humans nor plants nor any other form of life creates carbon. The carbon that is on earth has been here for billions of years. The only question is how much of it is in the ground versus the atmosphere and humans absolutely can affect that balance.
(for you pedantic souls out there, yes I'm aware humans can technically create carbon from other atoms but doing so takes huge amounts of energy and isn't done on any meaningful scale)
Apple last year faced declining revenue as it grappled with the first prolonged slump in iPhone sales.
Not really shocking. The iPhone 7 is barely different from the iPhone 6. They gave users no reason to upgrade. They've basically ignored the Macintosh line for several years now. They haven't done anything particularly novel or interesting in their iPad line in quite a while. They introduced the Apple Pencil but didn't really commit to building the software to make it useful or give users a way to store it in/with the device between uses. I hate to say it but the Microsoft Surface line has been a lot more innovative recently. The Apple Watch was always going to be a niche product at best and they haven't done anything interesting with Apple TV.
Apple hasn't released anything new or noteworthy so why should their revenue be expected to go up. Their products are still good but they really need to push the envelope a bit more if they want to maintain their current gaudy profit margins.
A few places in the UK have already started having tolls for vehicles that emit pollution at the point of use.
Which is fine but let's not pretend they are enough to force a mass transition to electric cars. The fees would have to be absurdly high to really force people to accelerate the switch to electric cars and unfortunately the options in EVs and hybrids are still rather lacking unless you want a really crappy eco-cred vehicle like a Prius or an impractical city car like a Leaf. Some like the Chevy Volt aren't bad but the options are rather thin if you don't want a sedan or hatchback.
It's not much of a stretch to imagine congestion fees for non-electric motor vehicles in urban areas.
Maybe in the UK it's not a stretch. Tolls like that will likely never happen in the US during my lifetime as long as the republican party maintains its hard on against anything that smells like a tax. Maybe some of the states in the US (California?) could manage such a system but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
Humans don't just magically create carbon. They are carbon neutral.
Humans by ourselves are not carbon neutral even if you ignore our activities. However humans as a component of an ecosystem can be carbon neutral. In simple terms we breathe in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide. Plants do the reverse. Together the system is carbon neutral even though parts of it are not. Problem is that humans also do activities that are decidedly not carbon neutral and we do them to a degree the earth's ecosystem cannot easily absorb.
The problem arises when you take carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere.
Correct. Which is something we do with almost every modern day activity it seems. What mystifies me is how people actually can believe that digging up fossilized carbon reserves (essentially sequestered carbon) and releasing it into the air and water somehow we can magically be done on a vast scale with no adverse effects.
just my own very sensitive nose can barely tell a diesel car in front vs trucks/buses I must pass(or stop) or have breathing trouble... Didn't read the referenced post but if it's true at all it must be pound for pound? Cause diesel cars dont' even come close to being as offensive.
Nitric Oxide (NO) is colorless and odorless. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) has a reddish brown color and a pungent smell. So if the majority of the NOx emmissions are Nitric Oxide you couldn't smell it even if you wanted to.
European countries should just do themselves a favor and begin killing off excess humans.
They tried that in the 1910s and again in the 1940s. Didn't work either time. Just depressed the population growth for a while and generated a lot of rubble in the process.
All of this drawn-out study and deliberation and the protracted uncertainty and wasted manufacturing and expense for users makes very little sense, when it's abundantly clear that all road transport is set to become electric in a very short space of time.
I'm as big a fan of electric cars as anyone here but even I'm not naive enough to believe that gasoline/diesel powered vehicles are going to go away any time soon. Even if electric cars eventually do take over the market it's going to take decades to happen. The average age of a car on the road today is 11.5 years. That number isn't going to drop dramatically any time soon. And right now EVs are more expensive than their equivalent gas/diesel powered cars in most cases. That's going to keep the dino-juice powered cars on the road for quite some time to come.